Devs Had to Demand Female Focus Testers for The Last of Us

[Oltsu]

Honestly is this really that suprising? I mean considering that the gender ratio of people who buy any given game is probably something like 9:1 in favor of males, is it really surprising that a market research firm decided to go with the (vastly) larger audience? They're hired to gauge sales potential, after all, not uphold gender equality.

http://www.onlineeducation.net/videogame

Actually it's a ratio of 6:4 not 9:1 but that's a nice, if revealing, guess.

Let's for a moment assume that the 6:4 ratio is also true for the demographic of console gamers. It probably isn't due to casual and handheld games but lets be optimistic about the amount of console gamers who are female.

You do realize that according to that infographic that you posted only 4.4% of console gamers are xbox female players while 22.8% are male. This means that there are over 400% more male xbox players than there are female xbox players. Meaning that one in five xbox gamers is female.

On the PS3 side of things according to that graph of all console gamers 3.6% are female PS3 gamers and 12.6% are male PS3 gamers. This means that there are 250% more male PS3 gamers than there are female PS3 gamers. Meaning that 2 in 7 PS3 gamers are female.

Are you still quite sure that the ratio is so even? Or that it's something absurd like 47% female like someone suggested earlier in this thread?

Skyrim: The default is pretty good, but the modding community changed that. I don't even need pictures, the mods out there go above and beyond.

Now these (With the exception of Skyrim) are all online and (usually) reward the most revealing armor at higher levels. I will however admit that more recent games like The Old Republic and Skyrim have managed to keep it tasteful and less sex-infused compared to other games. Old Republic just has a selection of revealing armors, and that one Leia Slave outfit (Yes that's a actual clothing item you can wear in the game). While games like Skyrim are immediately pounced upon by modders to make the sexy and NSFW stuff.

No question about those other examples (however if the game sells I see nothing wrong with the content) but complaining about mods is absurd.

why would you complain about something that some random gamer made on their own free time and that you are not by any means forced to download or add into the game.

Someone could add Justin Bieber as background music for Skyrim in a mod and I couldn't care less since I don't have to touch the mod.

 

[UberPubert]

-snip-

I'm not sure I understand, first you promised me fully armored viking characters and dominatrix women, now we're just perusing skimpy MMO costumes people dress themselves up in and judging Skyrim on the content of it's modders? Your problem seems to be with the art directors and consumer tastes and has little or no bearing on what game designers decided for their games and I'm wondering if this trend would continue in the single player games you can't - sorry, "won't" - list...

 

[Legion]

Unnamed research firm?

How is that considered a valid enough source to warrant a claim such as this? This is no different from the unnamed publishers who Jim mentioned in his video a couple of weeks ago. No names or companies are mentioned in regards to who actually said or done these things, so as far as news reporting goes, it has no validity.

If it is true, I understand the reaction, and agree that it is completely wrong, but as it stands, I don't understand the knee-jerk responses to completely unverified sources.

I don't think you understand how journalism works at all.

Ordinarily a reporter will have an anonymous source give details on a person/company etc. For example "Our anonymous source revealed that Matt Damon is having an affair". The source is kept secret for their own security, but the information they reveal is open. Giving the accused the oppurtunity to respond.

This kind of journalism would be the equivalent of saying "We spoke to our source Mr Smith and he told us that an unnamed celebrity is having an affair". As a story, it has no value. Nothing to go on. The unnamed firm cannot confirm or deny anything, and nobody has anybody to actually be angry with.

Stories such as this are basically unsubstantiated rumours. So people getting angry doesn't make any sense.

 

[Oltsu]

Honestly is this really that suprising? I mean considering that the gender ratio of people who buy any given game is probably something like 9:1 in favor of males, is it really surprising that a market research firm decided to go with the (vastly) larger audience? They're hired to gauge sales potential, after all, not uphold gender equality.

http://www.onlineeducation.net/videogame

Actually it's a ratio of 6:4 not 9:1 but that's a nice, if revealing, guess.

Let's for a moment assume that the 6:4 ratio is also true for the demographic of console gamers. It probably isn't due to casual and handheld games but lets be optimistic about the amount of console gamers who are female.

You do realize that according to that infographic that you posted only 4.4% of console gamers are xbox female players while 22.8% are male. This means that there are over 400% more male xbox players than there are female xbox players. Meaning that one in five xbox gamers is female.

On the PS3 side of things according to that graph of all console gamers 3.6% are female PS3 gamers and 12.6% are male PS3 gamers. This means that there are 250% more male PS3 gamers than there are female PS3 gamers. Meaning that 2 in 7 PS3 gamers are female.

Are you still quite sure that the ratio is so even? Or that it's something absurd like 47% female like someone suggested earlier in this thread?

You do realize, that you're reading it wrong. It's not talking about the percentage of players per console, it's saying what console those players PREFER if forced to choose one. So yes 3.6% of gamers are female and PREFER the Playstation, and 12.6% of gamers are male and PREFER the Playstation but that does not mean that the actual ratio of players is 1:4. It might be more, it might be less.

Either way having a focus group of 10 individuals where 100% are male and 0% are female is still erroneous even for the big consoles.



Also it's interesting that you neglect to mention the Wii which, even if the infographic suggested what you think it does would mean that female gamers outnumbered males on the Wii at a ratio of 3:2. And since the Wii is the most prevalent console, making up 48% of sales that would give those numbers even more weight.


But again, that's not what the infographic is saying. It simply says that 40% of gamers are female, and then lists console preferences by sex.


And am I sure about the ratios? No, this is just 5 minutes of research. But the people who made the infographic presumably have done research and they ARE sure about the numbers so I will trust them unless given reason to think otherwise.

In theory you are right about the word prefer however in practice I haven't seen any proof that a meaningful part of the population owns multiple current generation consoles. So that means that preferring a console is about the same as owning that single console, not 100% accurate but very close to it.

I also left out the wii because I did not want to do any more math and I was highlighting the difference between the overall gaming demographics and demographics for consoles on which games like the last of us will be played on. Last time I checked the wii isn't really that huge on first party PS3 games.

So in the end saying that 40% of gamers are female and that game X on the PS3 or xbox 360 should thus cater to females is quite illogical. You have to look at the individual demographics before you can make that decision. I still of course support having female game testers obviously, just that we shouldn't go around spreading pointless statistics in order to inflate the importance of one group.

 

[Andrew_C]

Female here, not sure I understand the problem. Why do they need to specifically find out what women think, they're not specifically finding out what men think of the game, are they?
Surely they were going to get a random sample of gamers to beta test the game and give feedback which, being from a random sample, would include female gamers views.

Except the Market Research firm were going to specifically exclude women gamers and only use a "random" sample of men. Which is why Naughty Dog had to push for them to include women in the focus groups. RTFA.

 

[MagunBFP]

Am I the only one that read this and saw that it only said they had no plans to polling women specifically? No where did it say they weren't going to include women just that there were no specific plan about it. It's almost as if they had this group of people called "gamers" and were going to select an unspecified target audience from it... and then comes ND and makes a big song and dance about how they need to specifically include women despite the fact that they weren't going to not include women in the first place.

 

[JudgeGame]

Unnamed research firm?

How is that considered a valid enough source to warrant a claim such as this? This is no different from the unnamed publishers who Jim mentioned in his video a couple of weeks ago. No names or companies are mentioned in regards to who actually said or done these things, so as far as news reporting goes, it has no validity.

If it is true, I understand the reaction, and agree that it is completely wrong, but as it stands, I don't understand the knee-jerk responses to completely unverified sources.

I don't think you understand how journalism works at all.

Ordinarily a reporter will have an anonymous source give details on a person/company etc. For example "Our anonymous source revealed that Matt Damon is having an affair". The source is kept secret for their own security, but the information they reveal is open. Giving the accused the oppurtunity to respond.

This kind of journalism would be the equivalent of saying "We spoke to our source Mr Smith and he told us that an unnamed celebrity is having an affair". As a story, it has no value. Nothing to go on. The unnamed firm cannot confirm or deny anything, and nobody has anybody to actually be angry with.

Stories such as this are basically unsubstantiated rumours. So people getting angry doesn't make any sense.

Your argument makes no sense. If you didn't name Naughty Dog in the article it would be just as meaningless. I don't see any valid reason for naming this firm since a) it would put Naughty Dog in a legal bind b) research firms are not entities of public interest, while development studios are, c) pointing out a single firm is meaningless when it's already well established most if not all firms employ identical methods and d) there's no reason to give this firm publicity. Using your logic (which is broken), we might aswell not trust what any news source says ever, since it's all eventually the fruit of someone's subjective experience. If you don't trust Naughty Dog's word, don't believe them. If you don't trust the integrity of Escapist's journalism, you have no obligation to read it.

 

[Genocidicles]

Actually, this is not true. Frequent purchasers are 48% female.

If you're talking about that BBC study, then that classed gamers as people who played any kind of game within the last six months.

Playing one of those interactive tv games for five minutes was enough to qualify someone.

So I don't think that statistic is really applicable to the development of AAA games.

 

[Oltsu]

Am I the only one that read this and saw that it only said they had no plans to polling women specifically? No where did it say they weren't going to include women just that there were no specific plan about it. It's almost as if they had this group of people called "gamers" and were going to select an unspecified target audience from it... and then comes ND and makes a big song and dance about how they need to specifically include women despite the fact that they weren't going to not include women in the first place.

Yup, reads the same to me. Nowhere can I see the article mentioning that they were going to purposefully exclude girls from playtesting, they were just going to take a random group of testers and let them test the game.

ND on the other hand brought the whole gender issue on the table and specifically wanted to make it into an issue. A clever marketing tactic most likely to make them look like the good guys.

I just see this sort of thing as toxic to the whole community, I don't want to see different people as girl gamers, or male gamers or whatever gamers. I would just like to see everyone as their own individual gamer.

 

[m19]

I just hate the idea of focus groups in general. Yes polish every sharp edge until it's bland and generic but offends no one.

ND on the other hand brought the whole gender issue on the table and specifically wanted to make it into an issue. A clever marketing tactic most likely to make them look like the good guys.

It's kinda starting to look that way. Mention something about fighting the good fight, get free press.

 

[MagunBFP]

Female here, not sure I understand the problem. Why do they need to specifically find out what women think, they're not specifically finding out what men think of the game, are they?
Surely they were going to get a random sample of gamers to beta test the game and give feedback which, being from a random sample, would include female gamers views.

Except the Market Research firm were going to specifically exclude women gamers and only use a "random" sample of men. Which is why Naughty Dog had to push for them to include women in the focus groups. RTFA.

Where did it say that?

the idea of polling female gamers was nowhere on the table.

My big surprise during this process is that the research group wasn't planning on focus-testing female gamers - it's something we had to specifically request.

Neither of those comments say anything about exclusion. They both say there was no specific plan to test female gamers, not that there was a specific plan to not test female gamers. Its kinda like saying there was no specific plan to test with males aged 31 wearing glasses... that doesn't mean if a 31 year old guy with glasses was part of the test group he'd be turned away. ND pushed to specifically make females a quota to be filled.

 

[itsthesheppy]

Good to see Naughty Dog standing up for their product and being interested in crafting something worthwhile. I hope this games turns out well and rewards their due diligence.

 

[MpSai]

Next thing Naughty Dog will be announcing through their PR department will be that a member of their development team successfully preformed the Heimlich Maneuver to save a female play-tester from choking. As the CEO of a major publisher stood back watched, while smoking a cigar made entirely out of rolled up hundred dollar bills and gold dust.

At this stage the bullshit is getting a little thick.

Ah yeah the bullshit of acknowledging that female gamers actually exist. Such terrible bullshit.

Umm I'm going to make the base assumption they were looking for female QA testers. To which I have to say, not exactly the easiest job to get even if it is entry level, temp work. Also considering the people who apply for those jobs...

Focus testers, pretty different. Focus testing is when you get a bunch of average Joes in a room to determine what the general public will think about your product. Since the marketing firm is still in the "only men buy/play games" mentality, they wanted the female character off the front of the box, because they assume a male audience would see her and think "this game is for girls" and not buy it. Which is just another reason focus testing stupid. Not to mention the public doesn't ever know what it wants or even what's particularly good, for example just look up the original ending to the Will Smith version of I Am Legend sometime, knowing that they changed it to a generic explosion fest that undermined the entire theme of the story just because the original ending didn't "test well".

Changing the box art of Bioshock Infinite isn't going to change that it's still a story told from the perspective of a man about a woman in a game about ideals, prejudice, and shooting people in the face with their zappy hands. Female gamers might still not like that, and neither will their grandmothers, but that's not going to change the content of the game on any level besides the superficial.

Funny you mention that, because Bioshock Infinite seems to have been just as popular with the female gaming audience. And there have been some pretty significant changes to Elizabeth between the 2011 demo and the final release. She no longer has distractingly large cleavage, she's no longer weepy and simpering, and she no longer behaves like an abused spouse (no really that was the original plan, she'd act like a battered housewife toward Songbird and exhibit Stockholm Syndrome. Early on she was also going to be mute.)

Booker went through some changes too, from that demo I get the feeling there was a very stereotypical contrast between them, Elizabeth was "caring" and tearful, Booker was grr tough guy. But Booker in his final form is more curious, more laid back, and even rather funny at times. Making them more well-rounded characters makes them more real, and they clearly have both been appealing to both genders.

 

[Mr.Squishy]

Here is a general idea of how a guy might design a game (Also about 99% of all fantasy games):

Guy 1: "Okay, we need to design a male character for this game".

Guy 2: "How about a 7'foot tall badass viking, wielding a broadsword and wearing full armor?".

Guy 1: "FANTASTIC IDEA! Now how about a female character?"

Guy 2: "We could try a strong and smart female knight who carries a sword and shield!"

Guy 3: "Or...we could make her into a cheap stripper who wears nothing but a leather thong and bra, coupled with over-the-top acrobatics and arming her with a BDSM whip?"

Guy 1: "STRIPPER IT IS!"

First off, lemme say I agree with your post. However, I feel the need to nitpick something. More specifically, the bolded part.
Now, I'm not saying smart and strong characters don't happen, and that they should't. But every time I hear about making female characters, I always - ALWAYS - hear the words 'smart and strong' in the same breath. Now, of course we shouldn't blindly latch onto stereotypes, like 'big strong person is also dumb', but I find it kind of disconcerting how women, unlike men, aren't allowed to be strong and dumb - a bit like, say, the Hulk or your hypothetical badass viking. It's like women can't be allowed to have flaws or something. Which I find to be a stupid idea, because flawless characters are also pretty damn boring and, to me, kind of creepy.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Nice one dudes....If you need anybody for future games I volunteer ;D

I'm pretty much going to pretend this game is about Simon and Marcy anyways

 

[Metalrocks]

they sound like really great guys who care about their game and want to deliver the best possible for their customers. now if they just can bring this game out for the pc, i would be so happy.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Naughty dog, Hats off to you for actually giving a rat's ass about your game, and standing your ground. How can you focus test a game (especially in this day and age with this many female gamers, and ESPECIALLY in a game where the female is the emotional heart of the story) and not have any female focus testers involved?

Still, I can't see any small developer (or one subservient to EA) being allowed to do this. I honestly think the only reason ND is able to get away with it is because they've made SERIOUS blockbusters before and can therefore throw their weight around without Corporate coming down and going "WHAT ARE YOU DOING YOU ARE CRIPPLING YOUR CHANCES YOU HAS NO RIGHTS".

I'm still hyped as HELL for this game.

 

[Andrew_C]

Where did it say that?

the idea of polling female gamers was nowhere on the table.

My big surprise during this process is that the research group wasn't planning on focus-testing female gamers - it's something we had to specifically request.

Neither of those comments say anything about exclusion. They both say there was no specific plan to test female gamers, not that there was a specific plan to not test female gamers. Its kinda like saying there was no specific plan to test with males aged 31 wearing glasses... that doesn't mean if a 31 year old guy with glasses was part of the test group he'd be turned away. ND pushed to specifically make females a quota to be filled.

We are obviously reading the article very differently. To me that says the marketing firm didn't even think of involving woman gamers in the market research, either as part of a mixed group or separately, until Naughty Dog requested it. Maybe I'm just too cynical.